Don't get me wrond, i LOVE Star Alliance, their product, theri airlines and their professionality!

However, what is the sense of having 8 network airlines in europe and NIL, Nada, Niente, no airline in South America??

Many citys are heavile overserved, whereas the South american market (like SCL or the Andean states) are heavily underserved or not served at all!! Now dont tell me more people want to fly to Clermont-Ferrand Aulnat in France than e.g. Lima Peru or Bogota Colombia.SA has NO airline in South America since Varigs enormous breakdown .. whatbare they gonna do about it?? Try to get TAM ... wouldn't LAN be the perfect member if only we could get them out of oneworld!

And I can't remember a Star Alliance airline serving JFK-LHR nonstop!!! What the hell is this??? I can fly from 3rd tier provincial cities in inner Turkey to another 3rd tier provincial city in Italy or Cchina .... but I can't fly between two of the most important cities in the world?? (Sure, money, yield and rentability is an issue .... but thos connections are a MUST in a network)

Quoting LH526 (Thread starter):but I can't fly between two of the most important cities in the world??

Actually you can fly between New York and London, just not on a Star Alliance carrier. UA used to fly the route, but pulled out some time ago. Neither EWR or JFK are major hubs for Star Alliance, and BMI does not operate any long haul flights from LHR. UA pulled out for a reason, so what do you propose?

Cheers
Mats

Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.

UA served JFK-LHR once daily until a couple of years back, maybe less. Against the massive Ops offered by AA and BA between those routes in OW they decided, quite rightly to pull out and place the 777 on a route that would make money.
IMHO, in 2009 we will see BD fly this route as well as LHR-BOS but time will tell.
Its hardly Stars fault that Varig went down the pan leaving a gaping hole in Sout America although thats now being filled by TAM, who have an extensive codeshare with UA and I beleive LH. Whether TAM joins Star remains to be seen.

Quoting ANstar (Reply 5):Not their fault Varig went under.... Australia is also under represented after Ansett went bust

But at least you can get there. SQ, TG, NZ and UA get you there.

About JFK-LHR route. Why? Why should *A jump into such a high competition route between airports where no *A airline has a hub to offer good onward connections. *A has two good hubs in Frankfurt and Munich.

About South America. This is really a problem for *A but I think TAM seems to be a good candidate.

Conclusion, except for Brazil (thanks to TP), and to some extend EZE and CCS *A is not present in SA. If at all mostly through AC and I am not sure if they run daily services and non-stops.

I think Costa Rica, Guatemala and Belize are the only countries served by AC, UA and US in Central America.
In Mexico 1W has many destinations because of AA and in the future MX, Sky has CO, DL and AM. *A will have almost nothing.

What could they do??

1. I think the announcement of JJ joining *A will come this year and they will enter in 2009. That gives an excellent coverage of Brazil, and connections via GRU to MVD, Paraguay and Bolivia.
2. TA will join to cover Peru and Central America. They will have to adjust their flights, so that CCS-LIM-CCS works for TP / LH and MEX-SJO-MEX, MEX-GUA-MEX and MEX-SAL-MEX so it works for LH.
3. For Mexico the only chance I see, is that one of the new players like Interjet (isn't one of these new ones partly owned by TA?) will become a partner, but only if they start to operate out of MEX.
4. Columbia: Maybe US, UA and/or LH start flying there in the not so long future. Ongoing pax to MDE, UIO, GYE etc. can use AV. Maybe AV is even another candidate to join *A to cover the Andean Region, but the problem I see with AV is Ocean Air in Brazil.

I wouldn't be surprised to see LH start up a JFK-LHR route, maybe even with PrivatAir?? Just a guess...

Since the LH investment in B6, there has been talk in the press a few times about LH building a mini-hub at JFK to feed into B6 eventually linking FF programs etc.. I wouldn't be surprised to see an LHR pairing out of this....

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 4):UA served JFK-LHR once daily until a couple of years back, maybe less. Against the massive Ops offered by AA and BA between those routes in OW they decided, quite rightly to pull out and place the 777 on a route that would make money.

To be precise they actually sold their London -JFK rights to Delta, who then started up LGW-JFK, a far better fit for them with their extensive JFK operation. For UA it just didn't make sense against AA, BA, VS.

Quoting Doona (Reply 10):Well, if SQ suddenly went bust, it would leave a hole, much like when Varig went under. It's not Star's fault that the airline imploded, and AFAIK, Star Alliance is working to fill the gap.

Quoting BP1 (Reply 11):Very simply put SQ is not going to go bust. That is absurd to think SQ is going to go bust.

It certainly is absurd to think SQ might go bust. But its not beyond the realms of possibility that SQ might pull out of Star one day. Its been rumoured in parts of the industry for some time. There's a view that SQ feel that they are getting far less out of the alliance than other carriers are by having SQ in there.....

Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work

UA had one flight a day JFK-LHR until they sold their New York-London route authority to DL about 18 months ago. With JFK not being a UA hub it wasn't a profitable UA route and they could make better use of the aircraft elsewhere.

Quoting LH526 (Thread starter):However, what is the sense of having 8 network airlines in europe and NIL, Nada, Niente, no airline in South America??

But why do you have to fly on a Star Alliance carrier within South America? I'm sure virtually every major Star Alliance member has interline ticketing agreements with most if not all major airlines in South America and can easily book connecting flights and quote you a through fare.

It would be my guess that there are no Star carriers currently in South America simply because there aren't any carriers there with an extensive enough route network.

Quoting SKY1 (Reply 16):oneworld with just 10 to be soon 11 carriers has a similar, maybe even better, worldwide coverage than Star with so many airlines inside. (I can't remember the exact number as I've lost count)

I'm not so sure about that.

In North America, I would have to say that SA has a superior network overall.
In Europe, I would also have to say that the SA network is superior.
In the Middle East, their networks are quite similar, though I'd probably give the edge to SA with MS and TK over OW with RJ.
In Africa, no alliance has a fantastic network, but the SA network is certainly far larger than OW's.
In Asia, the SA network is far larger than the OW network.
In Australia, OW is much larger than the SA, though the major destinations are all well served from outside of Australia.
In South America, OW is larger than the SA, though the SA does have more destinations in Brazil.

There's not much the SA can do to improve in Australia; however, it does look like TAM may join the SA, further entrenching its dominant position in Brazil. If COPA were to join as well, as has been speculated on this board, the SA's network in the Americas would be very well balanced, and probably larger than OW or ST.

As far as Africa is concerned, I think that Ethiopian Airlines would be a good addition, though I don't believe there's any movement on that front.

Oneworld may have better quality overall; however, it's a bit absurded to suggest their network could be better than the Star Alliance's network.

How ironic it will be if they end up snaring CO, and instantly become the strongest in the New York area.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 18):Yes, not everyone can be a Skyteam with carriers such as Aeroflot, Korean, and CSA Czech....

Ah yes, how horrible it is to have the largest airline in a nation of vast potential growth; the airline with more USA-Asia destinations than any other, sharing ATI with its USA partner; and the first central European block airline to gain ATI with a USA member of one of the big3 alliances as well. The shame.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 18):Yes, not everyone can be a Skyteam with carriers such as Aeroflot, Korean, and CSA Czech....

Indeed, SkyTeam is virtually unmatched in its ability to connect the new/emerging business & commercial centers of the world, especially with respect to the energy sector. And unlike Star and oneworld, SkyTeam's members (with the notablee exception of CO) actually work together and work together well, with a far more integrated alliance (in terms of network, scheduling, ATI, and even onboard service levels) than any other.

Sorry to sound like a ST marketing ad, but the truth is that too many people underrate SkyTeam simply because it operates with a decidedly different focus and set of strategies than the other two alliances, even though its the SkyTeam members that ultimately will be laughing themselves all the way to the bank with the expansion into new markets versus Star and oneworld members who have to try hard to NOT cannibalize each other's long-established traffic flows.

[Edited 2008-04-11 14:52:10]

Live life to the fullest.

25 Travelin man
: Not that you bothered to comprehend the context with which it was stated, but my comment was specifically directed at the previous comment of: You ar

26 Avek00
: By choice or default, SkyTeam has a more "complementary" set of airlines with similar service levels compared to other airlines. For instance, in bus

27 N1120A
: UA did, but stopped. It was served even more than that. It was only once daily for a very short time. There was nothing right about the whole thing.

28 Travelin man
: That's only because the high end of Skyteam doesn't match the high end of OW or *A. So, in essence, when everyone is "OK" in Business Class, yeah, th